Heritage Statement The Fox, A1, Colsterworth, Grantham NG33 5LN REF: P19-0152 DATE: 5th December 2019 Introduction 1. The following Heritage Statement has been prepared by Pegasus Group, on behalf of the Fox Roadside Services Ltd., in order to review the significance of the underused Fox public house in association with its proposed demolition to facilitate the erection of roadside services, hotel and petrol filling station with associated parking, landscaping, and access works. 2. This Heritage Statement follows the suggestion from Historic England in relation to the current application (LPA Ref: S19/1377) that the applicant seeks “the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as regards what work may be needed in respect of undesignated heritage assets including but not limited to The Fox.” 3. This Heritage Statement will provide information about the existing buildings on the site and their significance, if any. Methodology 4. The following assessment has been informed by Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment1 (henceforth referred to as GPA 2: Managing Significance) and English Heritage’s Conservation Principles.2 5. Historic England have also prepared advice in respect of the preparation of Statements of Heritage Significance within their Historic Environment Good Practice advice in Planning Note 12: Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets3 (henceforth referred to as ‘GPA 12: Statements of Heritage Significance’), which advocates considering the three types of heritage interest as set out in Paragraph 006 of the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG): archaeological interest; architectural and artistic interest; and historic interest. These consolidate the four types of heritage value and asset may hold as identified in Historic 1 Historic England, 2015, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment 2 English Heritage, 2008, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment 3 Historic England, 2019, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets Pegasus Group Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | Liverpool | London | Manchester | Peterborough © Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited Page | 1 England’s Conservation Principles; being evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. 6. In order to relate to key policy, the following levels of harm may potentially be identified when assessing potential impacts of development on heritage assets, including harm resulting from a change in setting: • Substantial harm or total loss. It has been clarified in a High Court Judgement of 20134 that this would be harm that would ‘have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced’; • Less than substantial harm. Harm of a lesser level that that defined above; and • No harm (preservation). A High Court Judgement of 2014 is relevant to this5, in which it was held that with regard to preserving the setting of Listed building or preserving the character and appearance of a Conservation Area, preserving means doing no harm. 7. Preservation does not mean no change; it specifically means no harm. GPA 2: Managing Significance states that “Change to heritage assets is inevitable but it is only harmful when significance is damaged”. Thus, change is accepted in Historic England’s guidance as part of the evolution of the landscape and environment, it is whether such change is neutral, harmful or beneficial to the significance of an asset that matters. 8. With specific regard to the content of this assessment, Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 states: “…The level of detail should be proportionate to an assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance...” (our emphasis) 9. Full details of the methodology adopted are provided at Appendix 1. Planning Policy Context 10. The site does not contain any Listed Buildings, nor does it fall within the boundaries of any Conservation Areas. However, Historic England has suggested that the Fox public house may be considered a non-designated heritage asset, which are defined within the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance as “buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets6”. 4 EWHC 2847, R DCLG and Nuon UK Ltd v. Bedford Borough Council 5 EWHC 1895, R (Forge Field Society, Barraud and Rees) v. Sevenoaks DC, West Kent Housing Association and Viscount De L’Isle. 6 MHCLG, Planning Practice Guidance, Paragraph: 039 (ID: 18a-039-20190723, Revision date: 23.07.2019) Pegasus Group Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | Liverpool | London | Manchester | Peterborough © Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited Page | 2 11. With regards to non-designated heritage assets, paragraph 197 of NPPF states that: “The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.” 12. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning applications are determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 13. The South Kesteven District Plan Local Plan currently comprises the Core Strategy (July 2010), Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) (April 2014) and a few remaining saved policies and allocations (which affect Grantham only) included in the 1995 Local Plan. 14. Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District within the Core Strategy states: “South Kesteven's Landscape Character Areas are identified on the map [following paragraph 4.1.10]. Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration. All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to: 1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets 2. local distinctiveness and sense of place 3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape 4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces 5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings 6. the condition of the landscape 7. biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape 8. public access to and community value of the landscape 9. remoteness and tranquillity 10. visual intrusion Pegasus Group Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | Liverpool | London | Manchester | Peterborough © Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited Page | 3 11. noise and light pollution 12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council 13. impact on controlled waters 14. protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas).” 15. Details of the full policy context are provided at Appendix 2. The Site 16. The Fox lies adjacent to the southbound carriageway of the A1, to the east of the settlement at South Witham. The public house is part of a roadside services which also comprises an ‘OK Diner’ and a commercial building which replaced the former Abacus bus offices. Plate 1: Site location plan. 17. The Fox comprises a part two-storey, part single storey, white-painted, rendered building with a pantile roof. The western façade is two-storeys in height and fronts onto the A1 (Plate 2 and Plate 3). The fenestration on this elevation comprises a mix of traditional and modern windows in both black- and white-painted frames. The modern windows are flusher with the elevation whilst the traditional windows are set back further. This part of the building is likely to be the earliest, although heavily altered, and potentially even reconstructed entirely. Pegasus Group Birmingham | Bracknell | Bristol | Cambridge | Cirencester | East Midlands | Leeds | Liverpool | London | Manchester | Peterborough © Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without